THE PERMACULTURE ASSOCIATION

TEN YEAR FOREST GARDEN TRIAL

YEAR 5 REPORT

October 2016

by Silvio Volkmann

Ten Year Forest Garden Trial; Year 5 Reportby Silvio Volkmann

First published October 2016 by: The Permaculture Association. Hollybush Conservation Centre, Leeds, LS5 3BP Website: https://www.permaculture.org.uk/Telephone/Fax: + 44 (0)845 458 1805 (calls charged at local rate)E-mail: research@permacultue.org.uk

This document is copyrighted under a Creative Commons license, specifically a “Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported” licence. This means that we keep our copyright but allow other people to copy and distribute the work provided they give us credit. Commercial use of the work is not allowed, and no modifications can be made to it. For more information about the license see http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/

Cover photo: Edibles Forest Garden – Summer 2015, abundant produce in a former open field

The Permaculture Association has as its mission 'to empower people to design thriving communities across Britain, and to contribute to permaculture worldwide'. Its vision is 'an abundant world in which we care for the earth, each-other and future generations, whilst living within nature's limits'.

The Permaculture Association is a company (05908919) and a registered charity (1116699 and SC041695).

https://www.permaculture.org.uk/http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Contributors to the report:Dr. Chris Warburton Brown (Permaculture Association – Research Coordinator)Andy Goldring (Permaculture Association – CEO)Tomas Remiarz (Technical Advisor to the project)

Interviewed participants in 2015: Deborah Wolton, Eric Nelson, Rakesh Bhambri, Rosie Lonnon, Sagara Swier, Simon White, Tim Potter

… and the generous anonymous donors of the initial project funding

Above: A view of the Kerswell Forest garden in its landscape context. Shelter belts can be seen in the foreground from the ridge above the site.

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS USED

TYFGT Ten-Year Forest Garden Trial

PA Permaculture Association

FG/s Forest garden/s

FGP/s Forest garden project/s

- 3 -

1. Foreword, by Chris Warburton Brown, The Permaculture Association...................52. Introduction..............................................................................................................72.1. Background..................................................................................................................72.2. Objective of the year 5 study........................................................................................8

3. Methodology..........................................................................................................103.1. Literature and project research...................................................................................103.2. Scope.........................................................................................................................103.3. Data collection............................................................................................................113.4. Tools and data analysis..............................................................................................12

4. Results...................................................................................................................134.1. Year 5 study – Summary.............................................................................................134.2. Elaboration of the interviews.......................................................................................16

4.2.1. Satisfaction factor...........................................................................................................164.2.2. Changes of objectives....................................................................................................174.2.3. Development of yields....................................................................................................184.2.4. Community involvement.................................................................................................184.2.5. Finances.........................................................................................................................194.2.6. Micro-climate..................................................................................................................204.2.7. Biodiversity.....................................................................................................................204.2.8. Soil quality......................................................................................................................214.2.9. Maintenance efforts........................................................................................................214.2.10. Struggles and weakness..............................................................................................214.2.11. Gains and strengths.....................................................................................................224.2.12. Personal skills..............................................................................................................234.2.13. Education – Sharing of experiences or expertise........................................................234.2.14. Record keeping............................................................................................................244.2.15. Needs and wishes........................................................................................................244.2.16. Future expectations......................................................................................................24

5. Conclusion.............................................................................................................265.1. Participatory research.................................................................................................265.2. Recommendations for the trial....................................................................................275.3. Methodology...............................................................................................................27

6. Outlook..................................................................................................................297. Lessons for Participatory Research, by Tomas Remiarz, Technical Advisor........308. Appendices............................................................................................................328.1. Bibliography................................................................................................................328.2. Telephone interview questionnaire..............................................................................328.3. List of projects............................................................................................................33

- 4 -

1. Foreword, by Chris Warburton Brown, The Permaculture Association

In 2010 two anonymous donors gave a total of nine thousand pounds to the Permaculture

Association to conduct a ten year research trial into forest gardens in the UK. The idea was

to give half of the money to a dozen newly established forest garden to help cover their set

up costs, and to use the remaining money to monitor their progress and evolution over the

following ten years. This report marks the half way point of that project. It reports on the

progress of the forest gardens in the trial, and on what has been learned so far.

The 10 year trial has been both an opportunity and a challenge. An opportunity to create

and study new forest gardens over a long period, and to draw clear conclusions that can

help future forest gardeners. A challenge because there was never really enough money to

properly fund the research, and because when the project was designed the Association

lacked expertise in running research projects of this kind. These two opportunities and two

challenges have run through the whole trial so far and appear throughout this report.

Sometimes it has felt the opportunities have outweighed the challenges and sometimes the

challenges seem to have outweighed the opportunities. Ultimately we have successfully fol-

lowed our small group of forest gardens from creation to semi-maturity, and this report cer-

tainly delivers some clear conclusions that will help future forest gardeners. This success is

largely due to the endeavours and determination of the forest gardeners themselves and to

the excellent research volunteers that have worked on the project; Celia Ashman, Barney

Thompson, Jon Warrington and Silvio Volkmann. Silvio has done an outstanding job pulling

this report together.

But it is fair to say that we have not yet achieved the full potential of the project. In particu-

lar the shortage of money has meant it has not been possible to bring the forest gardeners

together face to face or to create a strong and supportive network for them. Because we

have relied on volunteers, the Association’s support for the project over the last five years

has been inconsistent. At the start of the project, the intention was to begin with loose re-

search aims and then firm these up through a participatory action research process with

the participating gardeners. However, the wide geographical spread and limited budget

made it difficult to bring practitioners together to develop this aspect of the project.

- 5 -

This report shows that the project has certainly been a worthwhile undertaking. Much has

been learned, and that learning will be of considerable benefit to future forest gardeners.

Arguably the most important thing about the project is its existence, making a clear state-

ment that UK forest gardens are worthy of study. In this sense the project was certainly

somewhat ahead of its time; published research on temperate forest gardens was almost

non existent six years ago but is now starting to emerge, and the recent creation of the

Food Forest International Research Network will surely speed up that process. Hopefully it

will be only the first of many such studies. In this way it has proved very valuable. I hope

the detailed information and advice in this report will also prove very valuable for all forest

gardeners, whether new or experienced.

What of the future of the trial? The project budget is now fully spent, but we remain keen to

deliver a strong conclusion to the project in year 10 (2020). We will therefore be fund rais -

ing to support this work. In particular, we are keen to ensure that all the gardens in the trial

(even those that are no longer actively participating) are visited and full photographic, biod-

iversity and yield records are made. This will enable the production of a high quality final re -

port presenting a range of both anecdotal and scientific observations, and drawing strong

conclusions on what has been learned from the trial.

If you have found this report useful or inspiring and would like to discuss the way forward

for the trial, please email me: research.@permaculture.org

- 6 -

2. Introduction2.1. BACKGROUNDFor background information it is useful to have a look at the “Year 3 report” (Remiarz

2014) before reading this “Year 5 report”. The earlier report provides the full background

to the 10 Year Forest Garden Trial as well as the development and results from the first

three years. In 2013 the objective of the trial was adapted because of some unanswered

questions, particularly a need to define the precise research focus of the project. Due to

this the project became more open-ended and exploratory in order to establish the direc-

tion of the further research.

A brief overview of the 10YFGT project• Goal for year 3: Complete round 1 of data collection and initial evaluation

• Goal for year 5: Complete round 2 of data collection and deepen evaluation

• In year one of the study, three distinct user-types of FG were identified within the

study group (with different ways of recording required):

◦ Private FG – designed to produce a wide variety of different crops

◦ Community FG – social yields like learning and people's involvement might be

as important as what is actually harvested

◦ Commercial FG – guilds may be designed around a few major commercial

crops

• By completing the year 3 report the aims of the TYFGT were finally in place as the

basis for the workplans in year 5 and 10:

1. To improve the ability of the Permaculture Association, project participants

and other forest gardens practitioners to design and undertake research into

forest gardens systems.

2. Through the process of achieving the above, to better enable project

participants and other forest gardens practitioners to achieve their personal

goals.

3. To improve understanding of forest garden systems in different social settings.

• Setting these aims made possible clear methodologies and the gathering of data

in a systematic fashion.

◦ M1: Investigate diversity and abundance of a wide range of social, environ-

mental, productive and economic yields in different social settings over time

(including the measurement of inputs and outputs, crop yields, biodiversity and

soil quality), as well as qualitative and (where possible) quantitative assess-

ment of personal and community benefits

◦ M2: Facilitate participatory design of a long term FG research project, with out-

comes at both operational research and project management levels (including

the development of user-friendly research methodologies and methods of shar-

ing these methodologies and their results)

• The intention was that participants' own project goals should be stated as a set of

comparable goals for every participating project. However this process was not fin-

ished in 2013.

2.2. OBJECTIVE OF THE YEAR 5 STUDYAs mentioned above, the goal for year 5 was a second data collection phase as well as an

evaluation of progress. Actually only the latter has been done. The reason is given in

chapter 4.

This report considers the development and changes of the participating FG within the last

two years. Essentially it is about assessing the satisfaction of goals around yield, com-

munity involvement and maintaining effort – the key issues, depending on the user-type or

FG objective (private, community, commercial). Our hypothesis is a simple one: yields

should have increased after several years of establishment, community life should be

stronger and richer, while in contrast the maintenance effort should be decreased. Associ -

ated are other points of interest and their changes, such as finances, learning experiences,

recreational value, biodiversity, soil quality and personal opinions. Finally, there are poten-

tially other unexpected outcomes, benefits or struggles. How these have developed is

shown in chapter 3, Results.

- 8 -

- 9 -

Kerswell Forest Garden early in its development

Kerswell Forest Garden in 2015

3. Methodology3.1. LITERATURE AND PROJECT RESEARCHIn preparation for this report there was full research of the already existing material. This in -

cluded the site descriptions, interviews and reports made up to and including 2013. Fur-

thermore there has been an extensive literature review of terms like agroforestry, forest

gardening and permaculture using the PA library. On this basis, the questionnaire was pre-

pared (see Appendices). The open questions, focused on changes and observations, were

chosen in such a way that the interviewees were able to potentially cover these key as-

pects:

• environment (soil quality, hydrologic balance, biodiversity, micro-climate, windbreak,

resilience)

• maintenance effort (productivity, weeds, seeding, irrigation, fertilising, resilience)

• outputs and costs (commercial success, labour, waste, pesticides, fertiliser, energy,

water, tools, increased property values, resilience)

• health (recreational value, well-being, awareness, diet, crop diversity)

• social (community building, networking, connecting of stakeholders, integration, or-

ganisation, responsibility, resilience)

• education (craft skills, environmental awareness, knowledge, knowledge transfer,

research)

• and the links between these points

3.2. SCOPEIn 2015 seven in-depth telephone interviews were conducted as source material. Of the 10

sites involved in the study:

• 1 site had both phone contact and visit in person (Edibles)

• 6 sites had phone interviews

• 1 site left the trial (Rifleman Cottage)

• 2 sites are still involved but proved difficult to contact (Black Mountain Development

Project and Steward Community Woodland).

As a result, three of the ten telephone interviews could not be done:

• Rifleman Cottage in Kent dropped out of the trial due to domestic challenges. Sub-

sequently the site owner who established the forest garden left the site in 2015.

Neither he nor his son who is now managing the site has been able to proceed with

- 10 -

the trial. The forest garden is not the main part of the site. And, it was not possible to

get in contact with the site owner again.

• The Black Mountain Development Project in Bradford is still part of the trial, officially.

That means there has been no other, contrary statement. But the person in charge

has changed. It was very hard both to find that out and to get in contact with her.

She does not know anything about the trial nor is she interested in it. At this time

there was no chance to find out more.

• The Steward Community Woodland in Devon is also officially still part of the trial (no

other, contrary statement has been received). But it was very hard to get in contact

with the person in charge. What emerged in February 2016 is that the community

living and managing the site is under incredible pressure facing the threatened loss

of their site and home. Obviously this is not the right moment to proceed with the

trial.

3.3. DATA COLLECTIONThe TYFGT was designed as a participatory research project with two primary research

methods for data collection: on the one hand quantitatively in form of measurable quantities

such as crop yields, on the other hand qualitatively in form of interviews. The intention was

to do this after three, five and ten years. This was to be achieved through telephone inter -

views of all 10 FG in the project, with an emphasis on collecting data that would shape the

future direction of the project.

Actually, across the whole project the quantitative data collection, even the main idea of the

participatory research, fell behind. According to their own statements all participants

stopped keeping records after three years due to lack of time and a clear guidance regard-

ing What and How. Apart from the initial set up grant, none of the FGPs were paid to take

part in the trial or to keep records, and staff resources at the PA to support this project have

always been limited.

Therefore the only possibility to document the progress so far was a qualitative survey in

the form of telephone interviews. The duration of the interviews were between 30 and 45

minutes and they were conducted at the end of 2015. The interviewees were the parti-

cipants in the TYFGT; the persons in charge who established the FG and / or those who

currently maintain it. There was a great richness in the detailed responses. As a result, de-

tailed analysis of the telephone interviews has been carried out.

- 11 -

3.4. TOOLS AND DATA ANALYSISFor conducting the interviews the following technique was used: phone or laptop with the

software Skype®. In order to record the talks the software Quicktime® was used. After tran-

scription, data analysis was carried out. Misplaced responses were moved to the corre-

sponding questions and repetitions deleted. Subsequently, common, similar and noticeable

issues were summarised. Significantly differing information, such as individual strengths

and challenges, were subjected to a separate consideration. In addition, where possible

there was a comparison with the results of a very similar telephone survey from 2013, plus

the face to face interviews and site visits conducted in 2013, and the Year 3 report. This

work's challenge was to ensure comparability despite the huge range of characteristics and

conditions. But, the weakness can be a strength too. This trial also shows the adaptability

of FG to different characteristics and conditions. Finally all of this was compiled into this re-

port.

- 12 -

Kerswell Forest Garden – Site design

4. Results4.1. YEAR 5 STUDY – SUMMARYWith the exception of one issue, the current project needs have not changed since 2013:

more time, more money, more volunteers and ecological surveys. However, networking

with the PA and other partners in this project have not been mentioned any more. Ap-

proached on that issue, some participants said that they do not see any benefit in collabor-

ating with the PA. In addition it has turned out that there is in some cases the wish for

generating an income from a private forest garden. The interviews show, that the FG are

generally evolving well, even if there are struggles or weaknesses. Presumably this is due

to the hard-to-evaluate potential of the practitioners, the sites and other influences. Some-

times things have developed better than expected.

The FG must reach a certain age in order to ensure that tree and shrub layers have be-

come mature enough and have got a proper level of their specific function, especially re-

lated to the benefits of micro-climate. After five years not all the FGs are in this condition.

This means that not every site has developed its full potential by year five. This also means

that this Year 5 Report is still not able to show the full strength of these FGs or of forest

gardening in general. But, most likely the final study in year ten will be able to do so.

The major successes up to 2015

• steady progress of the FG projects and partially finished establishment

• higher yields

• high improvement in biodiversity and soil quality

• significantly less maintaining efforts

• successful propagation of plants

• improvement in volunteering and community involvement

• improved knowledge and personal skills

• more educational activities

• beautiful place for recreation

• good designs

• creation of resilient, sufficient garden systems

• improved micro-climates

• relatively high satisfaction

- 13 -

The major weaknesses up to 2015

• lack of time

• wind-damaged trees

• still struggling due to a lack of ground preparation in the initial phase – in majority

weeds

• lack of volunteers

• lack of community involvement

• no or hesitant planning permission

General advantages of forest gardens

As mentioned above, this study's challenge is the comparability of data between sites due

to the wide range of characteristics and conditions. Even so, the successful progress of the

majority of sites proves the adaptability of FG to different characteristics and conditions.

Where conventional agriculture or gardening fails, especially on sloping or very small sites,

a concept such as a FG, simulating natural ecosystems, is able to match the needs of hu-

mans as well as nature. As a result of this the year 5 study suggests that the -benefits of

FGs are in general:

• lower costs

• lower input of energy, water and materials

• lower maintainance effort

• lowest waste production

• reasonable yield

• rich social life

• higher biodiversity

• higher recreational value

• rich personal development

Recommendations for new forest garden practitioners

A big outcome in the Forest Garden Project Report for 2013 are recommendations for new

forest garden practitioners. Considering this, there is hardly anything to add in this report

for 2015. Many of these insights, gained within the first three years, have been very useful

for the progress of the trial sites. Over a longer period of time major mistakes in the initial

phase, the site evaluation, planning, design and planting, can be extremely difficult to cor-

- 14 -

rect. How that looks on specific sites will be shown by the detailed elaboration of the inter -

views below.

General recommendations from the 3 and 5 year interviews include:

Design

• its all in the design – understand the land and micro-climates of the site and plan ac-

cordingly

• start with a small size and keep the design simple to get it managed

• work from patterns and designs

• stay focused on the long-term major goals of a FG:

low input (money, energy, material, maintenance)

high output (self-sufficiency, resilience, recreation)

Site preparation and maintenance

• where necessary, ensure an adequate means of irrigation

• ensure decent ground preparations and windbreaks

• start with windbreaks

• ensure correct spacing is planned for when the trees are fully mature

• put in ground covering canopy early to prevent weeds from re-establishing them-

selves

• black sheeting can prevent weeds from re-establishing themselves

• make long lasting and sturdy fences

• ensure there is adequate protection from rabbits and other pests

Budgeting and cost savings

• budget properly as trees are expensive

• source seeds and plants locally or relocate plants from other areas of the site or by

making exchanges with other gardeners

• designate an area of the site for growing and generating living mulch

• ensure that there are enough volunteers in the initial phase – they are crucial to get

the major work done

Ongoing Learning

• join forest garden networks

• adaptive management – be creative and adaptive as nature is

- 15 -

4.2. ELABORATION OF THE INTERVIEWS4.2.1. Satisfaction factorAked whether they are happy with the progress of FG, four of seven participants answered

that they were happy or very happy. These sites are really good examples for achieving the

benefits of a forest garden, even if different requirements have been met. Key features of

these projects are thorough site analysis and preparation, establishment of a great variety

of plants and layers and the creation of a functional social network, with family members or

volunteers contributing significantly to the development of the site as well as to the well-be-

ing of the stakeholders.

One participant expressed ambivalence, seeing benefits whilst facing struggles (“Some

years are good, some aren't.”). Two forest gardeners showed disappointment due to

struggles which can't be beaten by the gains. The major struggles resulted from insuffi-

ciently prepared ground, design mistakes (FG too big), from health or domestic issues or

harsh site conditions like strong wind, soil acidity, steep slopes or a remote location. An-

other issue that was revealed was the lack of focus, creativity or flexibility in order to over -

- 16 -

Edibles Forest Garden – March 2015, mulching with cardboard

come these challenges. Some practitioners have difficulties to use the opportunities the

sites offers.

Finances are a big problem for many; this aspect of a garden project depends on whether

the site can ensure a livelihood or only self-sufficiency. One forest gardener displayed an

incredible prospering zero maintenance garden created from just £12, but sadly he also

stated that his plants are overgrown now because there is nobody any more to harvest the

produce. It is an unused site today.

4.2.2. Changes of objectivesSubstantial changes in design or objectives were quite unusual, because the intention of

creating a food forest basically met the wishes and needs of the stakeholders. Additionally,

any major changes were likely to require much effort. Due to this, at those sites where

changes were necessary or even inevitable they generally occurred as adaptations to

changing conditions or initial design mistakes rather than radical changes.

In the best case the intention was simply to establish a zero maintenance polyculture for

the gardener's parents, and his aim has been successfully met. One participant expressed

that the forest garden's objective was quite unclear in the beginning because it is part of a

much bigger site run by a trust. Today, integrating it into the whole site has given the forest

garden a more educational and recreational character with big potential for community

building and as a venue for charities.

Another participant stated that the initial objective has changed from mainly self-sufficiency

and recreation into running courses. Causes of this change are health challenges as well

as breaking up with their original partner which has restricted the ability to do sufficient

physical work. At another site health issues were a significant reason to simplify the design

because the stakeholder was not able to establish a productive ground layer. Chickens

have been introduced to compensate for the poor ground layer and promote the soil fertility.

Furthermore the site's traditional orchards have been transformed into poly-cultures, while

the initial forest garden area has become an additional apple orchard with many apple vari-

eties. This example shows by far the biggest physical changes within the trial.

In one case it emerged that the small forest garden which provides a very small harvest is

able to supply the entire farm with fertiliser from its main crop. The objectives have

- 17 -

changed from the creation of a food production space to increased biodiversity and resili-

ence as well as to an educational use.

At several sites, the owners or the main person(s) managing the site changed over the

course of the trial so far, as well as the capacity to manage plantings due to health issues

in two cases. This showed knock-on effects on the productivity and usability of sites. This

indicates the need for contingency planning and anticipation of change in the design stage.

4.2.3. Development of yieldsAt this point it is hard to say how meaningful changes and trends in yield are. Clearer

trends should be visible in year 10 of the trial. The development of yields between sites is

very varied. Although mostly not monitored quantitatively, yields are something where

change is obvious to the gardeners. Three of seven gardens show a distinct increase of

produce, especially of fruits. Descriptions range from “heavy yields” and “better than expec-

ted” to “incredibly high amount of fruits, lots of different greens and medicinal plants”.

Three sites provide both an increased

yield of some species or varieties and a

decreased yield of others. Interviewees

said: “A few more apples...It is not a

great year.” or “There are few things that

has a fairly disappointing yield such as

apple trees...But everything else…is

really good.” One participant of the trial

stated that there has not really been a

yield yet because of the heavy wind and

drought that decelerates the grow of the

trees.

4.2.4. Community involvementThe community as the social aspect of a

forest garden contributes to the stability

of the whole system as it enables finan-

cial independence, high flexibility in

maintenance and a reduction of individual workloads even in the period of establishing. In

fact many stakeholders depend more or less on volunteers in terms of physical garden

- 18 -

Kerswell Forest Garden - Abundance, an astonishing yield of Mirabelle plum, variety 'Ruby' (a branch is brokendue to excessive weight)

work. Five years after the establishment of the forest gardens there is still need for volun-

teering work, especially maintaining and harvesting.

In general the trial participants state that there is no or little increase in community involve-

ment. By their own account the main reason is the remote location. In two cases there

seems to be no need for outer help because there is little to do any more. The sites are

small and now fully established. Only one site gets more and more volunteers helping in

the garden. As well sleeping facilities are very beneficial to have residential volunteers.

In order to receive enough help, of importance how attractive the forest garden is. The re-

moteness of a site is important, as are values like diversity or variety, design and cultural

events. Overall it was obvious that community involvement is a big challenge for the practi-

tioners.

4.2.5. FinancesThe financial aspect is a very important one, because money is crucial to our modern way

of life and so forest gardeners depend at least on breaking even. In the initial phase a lot of

money was spent on new plants, es-

pecially trees. Five years later, in

general the trial shows a mainly suc-

cessful financial outcome; the major-

ity of the participants express that

they are satisfied or even excited.

One is happy about getting more

funds from elsewhere to buy more

trees. Three practitioners said that

their FG has not caused any costs

after establishing. One of them even

intended to show that a prospering forest garden does not need lots of money; in addition

to the trial grant of £500 he spent only £12 for a grey water treatment system. The trees

and plants at his site came from different places, from making exchanges with different

people.

Contrary to this, two people expressed a lack of any financial income from the garden due

to health challenges or a very small yield. One practitioner outlined a fairly balanced image

of her finances. Self-sufficient in fruits and propagating trees, she was able to sell some

- 19 -

Kerswell Forest Garden – Natural pond

trees. Otherwise many tree species at this site have difficulties and do not grow well. Manu-

facturing and selling jam has been a source of income but the profit margin is too small.

There is a need for investing in facilities to be able to process produce professionally. In

general all kinds of financial support are welcomed by the forest gardeners; sometimes it

can be a gift like a freezer for storage.

4.2.6. Micro-climateThree of seven practitioners can observe a well balanced micro-climate at their site,

warmer in the colder seasons and cooler in the warmer seasons. The balanced micro-cli -

mate gives less stress to plants as well as a longer growing period. These qualities evolve

due to the different layers of a forest garden, ponds, raised beds and banks with alcoves.

However in four gardens there is little noticeable improvement because of heavy wind, the

slow development of the trees and still low plant density.

4.2.7. BiodiversityAll the participants are very happy about biodiversity. They state that it has increased no-

ticeably due to the creation of many diverse habitats. Observations at a former overgrazed

pasture field are that the wilderness has come back with orchids, great insect life and very

abundant butterflies, dormant for many years. Another practitioner describes the presence

of owl families with offspring in

the orchard-like forest garden.

In a suburban forest garden a

vanished spider species and

hedgehogs are showing up

again after absence for dec-

ades. Native hedges are well

known to increase biodiversity,

as can be observed at another

site where before there were

no small garden birds at all,

because of the big open site.

Finally, the sloping site with

terraces seems to be a really good habitat showing a huge variety of insects and amphibi -

ans.

- 20 -

Stepney City Farm , London- The smallest FG in the trial

4.2.8. Soil qualityThe soil quality of a forest garden is supposed to improve over time because of the imita-

tion of natural cycles. It is a really good indicator of a healthy garden. All but one of the par-

ticipants have been able to notice an improvement of the soil after five years. Despite

sometimes harsh initial situations they talk about massively improved ground. Soil which

was never good for food growing before, very stony or sandy with very little water holding

capacity has turned into a very healthy one with a much darker colour, a better texture, a

high level of organic matter and many worms.

4.2.9. Maintenance effortsThe maintenance efforts for a forest garden are supposed to decrease over time. The imit-

ated natural system should become a nearly self-sustaining one almost like nature itself.

The principle is: the more established it gets the less maintenance it requires. It does seem

that this is generally the actual result. Plantings have been finished fully or most widely

after five years. Many interviewees stated that they have now low maintenance with low in-

put.

The amount of work in some of the forest gardens has dramatically decreased. Some of

them don't need to irrigate or move compost any more. In the case of the backyard garden

the dry areas of the site are watered by a grey water system. Elsewhere there is still only

the need for cutting grass, for some weeding, pruning or mulching around trees until they

are mature, just a question of time. Many of the so called weeds are in fact useful with the

result that they are even used in the kitchen or for medicinal purposes. Regarding the re-

maining unwanted weeds, there is more ground cover taking over allowing less space for

them. However at a few sites there is still a high need for maintenance due to heavy wind,

deer or nettles.

4.2.10. Struggles and weaknessCompared to the successes of the FG it turned out that the challenges the participants

have are mostly manageable. Everything is quite educational for the ongoing progress and

for new projects. Mainly it depends on two factors, time and labour, even at those gardens

where establishment has not yet been finished. In individual cases there are particular chal-

lenges like planning permission, health issues or the lack of volunteers to do heavy work.

Greater struggles described by interviewees include steep slopes combined with adverse

site exposure to wind, or keeping the amount of grass under control. There have been mis-

takes too like over-planting. In one case a big weakness is the small design which does not

- 21 -

allow a big harvest. One interviewee states that there are no struggles or weaknesses at

all, and another does not see any major problems.

4.2.11. Gains and strengthsFor all the interviewees, the

gains and strengths outweigh

the struggles and weaknesses.

In general the FG are very pro-

ductive with a good effort-yield-

ratio reported, and a pleasing

place to be. A field that was pre-

viously pasture turned to be

very alive in every sense and

rich in colours; an ordinary sub-

urban garden turned into a wild-

life haven full of food for the

owner's family. One forest

garden provides all of the fertil-

iser the whole garden site

needs. Another practitioner

looks on his artistic skills and

his raised awareness for life

through his health challenges

as the biggest gains and

strengths. Many interviewees

expressed that their learning

experiences and insights are

highly valuable. Even if a forest

garden is established only

once, it is a changing system

with ongoing processes and can be still adapted. So different parts of the site benefit from

the experiences gained from another part, or from an earlier stage of development.

- 22 -

Edibles Forest Garden – 6 years ago, a demonstration patch near the road, mulch of manure, leaves, grass, cardboard etc has formed a deep soil

Edibles Forest Garden – 4 years after planting out this 'domestic scale'FG there is a good yield from apple trees, mulberry, blueberries, rhubarb, black and redcurrants, lavender, borage, chard.

4.2.12. Personal skillsSome interviewees started with existing advanced garden skills and did not learned any-

thing new, but most were clear that their personal skills had greatly improved over time.

Many participants have learned more about plants and how to flexibly use nature's benefits.

There are many ways of learning. Some skills are just learned by doing, as one inter-

viewee said: “I am impressed with myself on pruning; I taught myself.” Another case shows

how tree grafting and cutting bring greater success if learned on a course. Furthermore,

just doing garden work and talking to guests like volunteers improves the ability to teach.

The work in the forest garden also makes people more aware of analysing other sites and

of project development. It is definitely useful in terms of constantly trying to think of ways of

doing things better.

4.2.13. Education – Sharing of experiences or expertiseOne great benefit of a forest garden is to share experiences and expertise with people who

want to know how to work and live in harmony with nature. This is especially important in

urban areas where sustainable life is a big topic; urban forest gardens are perfectly placed

to meet the needs of city dwellers. Forest gardens can fit in every park, allotment and in

nearly every backyard.

For many people, the best way to learn is through experience, a fact which makes hands-

on volunteering mutually beneficial. Almost all the participants express that forest garden-

ing really inspires people, including themselves. People are very interested to see and

learn what a FG is. Some participants run courses about permaculture, forest gardening or

general gardening, for all kinds of interested people with or without their own garden, for

children, pupils and school teachers as well. These courses are given locally, nationally or

even around the world, sometimes at festivals as well. Some are involved in diverse net-

works where they are able to share knowledge. And sometimes a researcher from a univer-

sity appears at a site who does research on forest gardening and collects data.

Finally one of the interviewees is putting the huge range of experience and insight he has

gained from his forest garden work into a book on orchard management from a permacul-

ture perspective.

- 23 -

4.2.14. Record keepingExcept in the initial phase and

except for taking a few photo-

graphs, the participants in the

trial commonly don't take any

other records.

4.2.15. Needs and wishesThe needs and wishes of the

interviewees are as different

as the sites are. In general the

participants wish for a more beautiful, fruitful, diverse, mature and successful forest garden.

Partially there is a need for more volunteers or labour for ongoing establishment or main-

tenance. Other voices wish for more time or money to do that. Another participant raised

the need to run diverse courses in order to generate an additional income.

The wish for higher produce yield is very common, no matter if this is for personal need or

for income generation. Sometimes it seems to be a question of patience, which can be

challenging depending on the circumstances. Fruit trees and shrubs need to propagated

and planted or just grow to maturity, as do natural wind breaks. These forest gardens can't

yet exploit their full potential.

From the legal point of view, one practitioner is still waiting for planning permission for site

workings. Another would like to own the land which is just too expensive; in this case there

are strong restrictions from the landlord which limit the growing area available. Maybe be-

cause of this limiting factor there are some more wishes and needs: a proper nursery for

propagation, a pasteurizer to keep produce all the year, and a small business making jam

and chutney. Without these

things this forest garden can't

exploit its full potential, or be-

come fully financially viable.

4.2.16. Future expectationsOne participant trusts in his

forest garden's development

- 24 -

The Quadrangle – Gooseberry pruning

The Quadrangle – Digging the pondThe Quadrangle – The pond, summer 2015

as well as in his own efforts despite the struggles; he is confident he will be able to deal

with the site's limitations like steep slopes and heavy wind. Another does not have any idea

of the site's future. A third states pessimistically that he will continue to have problems with

competitive grass instead of having a productive ground layer.

The majority of participants have an optimistic or very optimistic estimation of their forest

garden's future. They are commonly optimistic, curious or positive and look forward to the

changes ahead. It seems that most realise that nature needs to be understood, needs time

to evolve, that one can hardly impose their own will on it, and that not every wish comes

true. But nature surprises sometimes with something unexpected, useful or beautiful. Pa-

tience and working creatively together with nature will be rewarded.

- 25 -

5. Conclusion5.1. PARTICIPATORY RESEARCHOne key objective of the participatory research initially was to keep records in order to have

a scientific basis for research on forest gardening. As mentioned above since 2013 there

are no records which the participants would be able to share. They said that they see two

major issues: the lack of time and the lack of knowledge, what they express as “a lack of a

very clear guidance”. Obviously the last point is more important then the lack of time. The

easiest thing to do is just to take photographs. But also that needs a structure (subjects,

weather, seasons and others) to ensure comparability or a clear documentation of the pro-

gress within a project.

In general the participants wish for clarification about what exactly the PA wants from them

in return for the funding. One participant argued that at the first meeting they asked what

kind of records the PA wants them to keep in each category (private, community, commer-

cial). There was no form, it was too loose. They were not given clear enough instruction of

what to record, he said. For example a commercial site owner as a business person would

know very well his yields, and there is a need of much more yield than from a small scale

private site. Because the livelihood of a business person depends on it he or she will put

much more energy in it. In contrast, a private forest gardener does not really care that

much because he or she would do it for love. So the yields would be very different. The

participant who suggested this was sad about not hearing very much after that. Further-

more he said that he does not know where the trial is going next because there has not

been much energy in it in the last four to five years. At the moment it would not feel like it is

well coordinated. Another interviewee expressed the same view.

In the year 3 project report there was a comprehensive consideration and redesign of the

methodologies, aims and objectives of the trial. For some reason a transfer of these new

insights and developments did not happen. Furthermore, sometimes the practitioners just

needed help to overcome a gardening related or site related issue. One participant ex-

pressed the need for the support from the PA and their peers to share good practice and

research ideas (e.g. as a peer-to-peer network). The suggestions included funding to get all

projects together in the winter time and for some kind of electronic forum or email list in or-

der to get in touch with each other and to have an exchange. Furthermore two participants

said they would like to have researchers at their site doing research.

- 26 -

5.2. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE TRIALThe following recommendations for a comprehensive participatory research trial depend on

the capacities of the PA and the associated experts. But, it would be very difficult to provide

all of them. It sets out an ambitious vision of what is needed in order to support the laymen

so that they are able to support the research efficiently. Some of the points are already

covered.

Possible guidelines for participatory research:• What - measurement parameter - partially covered

• When - dates of taking records - partially covered

• How - guideline or manual for laymen - covered by:

◦ “The Permaculture Research Handbook“ - Methodologies for measuring and re-

cording yields, biodiversity and soil quality

http://www.permaculture.org.uk/sites/default/files/page/document/smallhands-

mall.pdf

◦ “Permaculture Research: Soil Test Handbook“

https://www.permaculture.org.uk/sites/default/files/page/document/permacul-

ture_research_soil_test_hb_v.2.1_0.pdf

• Facilities - assistive equipment (e.g. soil test box, form sheets, online form for data

entry) - partially covered

• Personal assistance by researchers or interns partially covered

• Continuity of support: cannot be provided by interns but could be provided through

allocating resources to members of the permaculture network who could learn valu-

able research skills by supporting the trial.

• Peer-to-peer network soon covered as part of the Food Forest International Network

(FFIRN)

5.3. METHODOLOGYThe act of doing an interview and the way it is done, naturally causes errors that are based

on human psychology. On both sides, there is always a certain level of expectation, a pre -

conception that can distort both questions and answers. For example, I have an affinity to

the topic of forest gardens which could give the results a more positive perspective. An ab-

solutely neutral survey is unfortunately impossible, but should always be an objective. I did

consider this in the data analysis.

- 27 -

Another source of error is the fact that the questions are open. For specific questions it

means that some respondents have not been able to give an answer. Only through redraft-

ing the question or through giving direction by examples were those respondents able to

answer. This might also be a source of distortion. Nevertheless, in such cases this was the

only possibility to receive an answer at all.

During the analysis of the interviews I realised the lack of specific questions for taking re-

cords in order to match the aims of the trial. An adaptation would have been necessary.

Question 2 (changes of objectives) and question 3 (wish for doing any changes) are quite

similar. Question 2 is ambiguous and correlates in some kind with question 3 but doesn't

refer to physical changes. A better question would be: Have you made or are you going to

make any significant changes in your forest garden?

Furthermore, it is not appropriate to draw scientifically accurate conclusions from this sur-

vey and make comparisons with conventional methods in agriculture and horticulture, as

the latter are not the subject of consideration. Nevertheless, I drew some cautious conclu-

sions where they seemed obvious to me as a result of my own experiences.

- 28 -

6. OutlookAs explained above the PA lacks the capacity to sufficiently cover the participatory research

in the second half of the trial period of ten years. This means that it seems unlikely that any

quantitative data collection will be carried out during the remaining five years of the TYFGT.

This weakens the value of the study.

Nevertheless, I consider the study to be a success because it provides basic insights into

forest gardening over a number of years, such as strengths, weaknesses and recommend-

ations. Finally, after ten years, a final survey will be done, at a time when the forest gardens

are mature and all layers have reached a sufficient level of functioning. This especially ap-

plies to the tree layer regarding micro-climate, windbreaks, biodiversity and resilience. So

far, the gained experiences are already valuable sources of inspiration for many new and

existing forest gardens. So the TYFGT has potential, especially in a final publication, to

show people in the Western industrialised societies a functional, practical, affordable and

sustainable alternative, in terms of living environment, food production, recreation, urban

climate and others.

- 29 -

Edibles Forest Garden - making haylage

7. Lessons for Participatory Research, by Tomas Remiarz, Technical Advisor

From an Association point of view the trials lessons for participatory research are at least

as valuable as those for forest garden practice. This was the second attempt at

participatory research following the successful mixed vegetable trial in 2011, and the first

attempt at a long-term study. It was an opportunity-led project, following the offer of a

£9,000 donation for the purposes of researching forest gardens.

The short period between the initial funding offer and the beginning of the trials left little

time to define goals, research questions and methodologies. Contact with participants was

critically underfunded. There was little guidance regarding methodologies for recording

yields, biodiversity and soil outcomes, and no ongoing support. The wide geographical

spread made it difficult to bring people together, and the range of scales and settings

resulted in a less meaningful sample because of a lack of comparability of sites. The use of

interns resulted in a lack of continuity in contact between participants and coordinators. It

also meant that the coordinators couldn't systematically build up their understanding of

forest gardening in general, of the specifics of this trial and the specifics of the sites and

people involved.

For this particular trial, Year 10 offers an opportunity to gather information on maturing

forest gardens. If this is to be done successfully, it needs to be adequately resourced and

prepared. Funding should be in place at least a year in advance, so as to give both

coordinators and participants time to prepare.

Any future trial must develop clear objectives before sites are chosen, as these bear a

large influence on the choice of participants according to their skills and interest. If

measurements are to be an objective, it would be preferable to develop methodologies in

advance, in a draft form that can then be tested by participants. If the objective is to

develop the methodologies in a participatory way this requires a different set of skills and

interests among participants, and a different allocation of resources by the coordinators.

Choosing a geographical cluster, rather than going for a wider spread would allow

participants to travel to meetings and return home the same day. This may result in greater

participation. Greater continuity of contact between coordinators and participants would be

- 30 -

likely to improve participation. Ideally, one person should be responsible for contacting

participants throughout the duration of the trial. If that is not possible, a detailed handover

to the next person is necessary. Allocating time for an annual phone check in would provide

more continuity and allow for additional information to be gathered.

- 31 -

8. Appendices

8.1. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Crawford, Martin, (2010) – Creating a Forest Garden: Working with nature to grow edible crops, Green Books

Hart, Robert, (1996) – Forest Gardening, Green Earth Books

Jacke, Dave and Toensmeier, Eric (2005) – Edible Forest Gardens, Chelsea Green Pub-lishing Company

Remiarz, Tomas, (2014) – Ten-Year Forest Garden Trial, Permaculture Association, Year 3 report, https://www.permaculture.org.uk/sites/default/files/page/document/year_3_report_trials_v4_14-11-18.pdf [13/10/2015]

Thompson, Barney, (2013) – transcribed interviews with TYFGT participants, PA

Warmington, Jon, (2013) – transcribed interviews with TYFGT participants, PA

Whitefield, Patrick, (2012) – How to Make a Forest Garden I, Permanent Publications

8.2. TELEPHONE INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE

1. In general, are you happy with the progress of your forest garden thus far?

2. Have your objectives been changed, and if so how?

3. Have you done or would you like to do any significant changes at your site?

4. Are you happy with the development of yields? How have they changed?

5. Are you happy with the development of community involvement? How has it

changed?

6. Are you happy with the finances?

7. Within the last two years, are there new observations or experiences regarding fol-

lowing? Microclimate, Biodiversity, Soil quality, Maintaining efforts, Struggles/Weakness,

Gains/Strengths, Personal skills, Education

8. Within the last two years, have you been able to share your gained experiences or

expertise with interested forest gardeners, students or researchers?

9. Have you got any new records you would like to share?

10. What are your needs and wishes for your FG?

11. How do you estimate the future of your FG?

- 32 -

https://www.permaculture.org.uk/sites/default/files/page/document/year_3_report_trials_v4_14-11-18.pdfhttps://www.permaculture.org.uk/sites/default/files/page/document/year_3_report_trials_v4_14-11-18.pdf

8.3. LIST OF PROJECTS

(crossed out: not interviewed in 2015)

1. Black Mountain Development Project, Southfield School, Bradford, Community, 8

acres beside schools

2. Bridewell, Barnstaple, Devon, Commercial, orchard 0.5 acres, part of 11 acres

3. Edibles, West Slaithwaite, Huddersfield, Community

4. Residential Suburban Garden, Ilford, Essex, Private, 2 adjacent back gardens

5. Kerswell Forest Garden, Cullompton, Devon, Private, 3 acres

6. Oak Tree Low Carbon Farm, nr. Ipswich, Commercial, 2.5 acres, part of a 12 acre

CSA site

7. The Quadrangle, Shoreham, Kent, Community, 2 acres

8. Rifleman Cottage, Faversham, Kent, Private, 0.33 acres, part of 6 acre woodland

site including a commercial orchard

9. Stepney City Farm, Stepney, London, Community, 0.25 acre, 2 acre city farm

10. Steward Community Woodland, Moretonhampstead, Devon, Private, 0.33 acre in a

32 acre woodland

- 33 -

Contributors to the report:Dr. Chris Warburton Brown (Permaculture Association – Research Coordinator)Andy Goldring (Permaculture Association – CEO)Tomas Remiarz (Technical Advisor to the project)Interviewed participants in 2015:Deborah Wolton, Eric Nelson, Rakesh Bhambri, Rosie Lonnon, Sagara Swier, Simon White, Tim Potter… and the generous anonymous donors of the initial project fundingAbove: A view of the Kerswell Forest garden in its landscape context. Shelter belts can be seen in the foreground from the ridge above the site.Index of abbreviations USED2.1. Background 72.2. Objective of the year 5 study 83.1. Literature and project research 103.2. Scope 103.3. Data collection 113.4. Tools and data analysis 124.1. Year 5 study – Summary 134.2. Elaboration of the interviews 165.1. Participatory research 265.2. Recommendations for the trial 275.3. Methodology 278.1. Bibliography 328.2. Telephone interview questionnaire 328.3. List of projects 33

1. Foreword, by Chris Warburton Brown, The Permaculture Association2. Introduction2.1. BackgroundA brief overview of the 10YFGT project

2.2. Objective of the year 5 study

3. Methodology3.1. Literature and project research3.2. Scope3.3. Data collection3.4. Tools and data analysis

4. Results4.1. Year 5 study – Summary4.2. Elaboration of the interviews4.2.1. Satisfaction factor4.2.2. Changes of objectives4.2.3. Development of yields4.2.4. Community involvement4.2.5. Finances4.2.6. Micro-climate4.2.7. Biodiversity4.2.8. Soil quality4.2.9. Maintenance efforts4.2.10. Struggles and weakness4.2.11. Gains and strengths4.2.12. Personal skills4.2.13. Education – Sharing of experiences or expertise4.2.14. Record keeping4.2.15. Needs and wishes4.2.16. Future expectations

5. Conclusion5.1. Participatory research5.2. Recommendations for the trialPossible guidelines for participatory research:

5.3. Methodology

6. Outlook7. Lessons for Participatory Research, by Tomas Remiarz, Technical Advisor8. Appendices8.1. Bibliography8.2. Telephone interview questionnaire8.3. List of projects